|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Creationism/ID as Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||
FliesOnly Member (Idle past 4174 days) Posts: 797 From: Michigan Joined: |
Athansor writes: If this is true, and I honestly hope that it is, then it's quite simple. When you see "evidence" claiming to support ID, ask yourself these two questions: I don't mind being wrong on both counts honestly, ignorance is curable and all that. 1. What is the hypothesis? 2. How can we design an experiment to test this hypothesis? Remember, for it to be a science it must meet, at a minimum, these two requirements. Of course, also keep in mind that the hypothesis must be falsifiable, and the experiment must be repeatable.Now, go to the site you've linked and apply the above two questions to their claims...because this "Positive evidence of design in living systems consists of the semantic, meaningful or functional nature of biological information, the lack of any known law that can explain the sequence of symbols that carry the "messages," and statistical and experimental evidence that tends to rule out chance as a plausible explanation." means nothing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 506 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
Athansor writes:
Between my English and Philosophy professors, they have summed up pretty nicely why creationism isn't real science. Is Creationism Science? My English prof said that she would fail anyone who would write about creo science for the final English paper (20-30 pages). Why? In order for something to be scientific, the person presenting the concept must be willing to accept that it could be wrong. However, your faith as a christian creationist prevents you from ever accepting the possibility of being wrong on this thing. Therefore, it can't be science. My Philosophy prof told us, while we were learning informal logic, that he would fail anyone who dared to try to support the concept that creationism is science because it ain't science. Why? Because in order for something to be scientific it needs to be falsifiable. How the fuck can you falsify something that is supernatural? The real question is why is this even an issue anymore? Any coherent 16 year old can understand the 2 simple reasons I gave above.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Annafan Member (Idle past 4608 days) Posts: 418 From: Belgium Joined: |
did you make this up all by yourself? That was an excellent post that summed it all up nicely!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
did you make this up all by yourself? That was an excellent post that summed it all up nicely! Yeah, that was all me, no cut 'n' paste here Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
did you make this up all by yourself? That was an excellent post that summed it all up nicely! You like it? Why not make a Post of the month nomination (if someone hasn't already)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
I don't think it's necessarilly bad characterisation to call science "explanation". As long as the "explanation" makes sense. And explanations only make sense when they use and combine known and well-understood facts and processes.
That's how scientists think about explanation. But non-scientists may have a different idea on what counts as an explanation. Some of them actually think that "God did it" is an explanation, and if this can be backed up with a scriptural quotation they take it to be an excellent explanation. We are not having an in-house debate among scientists. Rather, science is being attacked from outside of science. We need to describe science in a way that is not confusing to the average citizen. And, in my opinion, use of the term "explanation" tends to confuse the issue.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
If it can be shown through a testable hypothesis that creationism is scientific, then the scientific world would be forced to accept it using their own criteria for acceptance.
That's not how science is practiced. Being scientific is not sufficient. Nobody doubts that Newtonian physics was scientific. But we don't accept it today, because we have replaced it with something better (quantum physics).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
BuckeyeChris Inactive Member |
Excellent post Rahvin! I'd just like to comment on one of your points:
Since ID is a violation of Occam's Razor and needlessly adds an entity to the Theory of Evolution, it is not true science. While this is true, I think the more important point about why ID and/or Creationism is not science are the bolded points made earlier in your post. With ID, this one in particular:
All scientific theories are testable and falsifiable. How can I test for an Intelligent Designer? What predictions are made about what we should find? What mechanism does the IDer use? How can an Intelligent Designer be falsified; what evidence would an ID proponent accept which would make him say "Well, I was wrong. ID cannot possibly be." ? And in relation to all of the above, how do you know that any given set of answers is correct? How can you delve into the mind of God (or other IDer) to know the proper answers to those questions? ID needs answers to these questions before it can be considered a science - and it seems pretty plain to me that those questions are unanswerable with any kind of reasonable certainty. Violating Occam's Razor with an unnecessary addition is one thing, but I think the more obvious offense is in the particular of what is being added - generally, God. (or a functional equivalent)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3953 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
That's not how science is practiced. Being scientific is not sufficient. Nobody doubts that Newtonian physics was scientific. But we don't accept it today, because we have replaced it with something better (quantum physics). Huh?? You are wrong about this. Being scientific certainly is sufficient for a scientific topic. And you may not accept Newtonian physics, but it most certainly has not been abandoned or replaced. It is the fundamental physics being taught at all levels of the educational system. Quantum mechanics is a branch of physics dealing with interactions at the atomic and subatomic level.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Being scientific is not sufficient to displace current science. There is a turnover. We drop support for older theories, and adopt newer ones. We would not adopt a creationist theory, even if scientific, unless it could to at least as well as evolutionary biology.
Sure, we still use Newtonian science. But, in principle, it has been replaced by relativity and quantum physics. We continue to use Newtonian science, only because it is a good approximation to those theories for many of the problems we want to solve, and the mathematics is simpler. But we no longer refer to the luminiferous ether, which was considered good science during much of the Newtonian era. We no longer reference phlogiston, although J.B. Priestley's research based on phlogiston was certainly scientific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4046 Joined: Member Rating: 7.6 |
Excellent post Rahvin! Thanks!
How can I test for an Intelligent Designer? What predictions are made about what we should find? What mechanism does the IDer use? How can an Intelligent Designer be falsified; what evidence would an ID proponent accept which would make him say "Well, I was wrong. ID cannot possibly be." ? And in relation to all of the above, how do you know that any given set of answers is correct? How can you delve into the mind of God (or other IDer) to know the proper answers to those questions? ID needs answers to these questions before it can be considered a science - and it seems pretty plain to me that those questions are unanswerable with any kind of reasonable certainty. Violating Occam's Razor with an unnecessary addition is one thing, but I think the more obvious offense is in the particular of what is being added - generally, God. (or a functional equivalent) You're quite correct. The extraneous entity proposed by ID is also unfalsifiable. ID does try to be scientific, however - while it does not propose a mechanism, it does make a prediction regarding "irreducible complexity." Unfortunately this prediction relies entirely on the unfounded assumption that complexity automatically means intelligence. My cat can turn a ball of yarn into an irreducibly complex mess - but she's not exactly smart. Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
MangyTiger Member (Idle past 6382 days) Posts: 989 From: Leicester, UK Joined: |
We drop support for older theories, and adopt newer ones. I hope we adopt better theories rather than just newer ones
We would not adopt a creationist theory, even if scientific, unless it could to at least as well as evolutionary biology. That's the key - I'd contend it would have to do better than evolutionary biology (parsimony and all that). Oops! Wrong Planet
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3953 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Being scientific is not sufficient to displace current science. Never said anything about displacement. I said IF creationism met the rigors of the scientific method, there would be a valid, rational, science based argument for it to be accepted by the scientific community and then it could be taught alongside evolution as a science based alternative. How could the science community reject it if it met the rigors of the scientific method? They could not. Of course this will not happen, we are speaking hypothetically here.
Sure, we still use Newtonian science. But, in principle, it has been replaced by relativity and quantum physics. Newtonian physics is widely accepted and has NOT been replaced by QM. Think of it as two main divisions. Classical or Newtonian physics dealing with the macro world and Quantum mechanics dealing with the micro world. Newtonian physics is the basis for all physics in the macro world; from statics to dynamics to thermodynamics to a whole host of other branches of physics. We continue to use it because it is the best method to solve the problems of the macro world, not because the mathematics is simpler. Quantum mechanics is only better at addressing interactions on the atomic and sub atomic level or in isolated cases where Newtonian physics fails. It makes no sense to try an examine the ballistics of a bullet leaving a gun with quantum packets of energy or to represent the motion of the bullet by its quantum wave form.
But we no longer refer to the luminiferous ether, which was considered good science during much of the Newtonian era. We no longer reference phlogiston, although J.B. Priestley's research based on phlogiston was certainly scientific. This is nonsense. There is no comparison between Newtonian physics and the previously false science of luminiferous ether. Newtonian physics is not false and will not one day be replaced by some better science. Newtonian physics has been around for 400 years and has been proven countless times. It is not a theory, it is a set of laws grounded in mathematics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
I hope we adopt better theories rather than just newer ones
I avoided saying that, because you cannot always compare. A new theory might be better in some respects, and worse in others. If we adopt it, that will be because we believe it to be better, at least with respect to what we consider most important.
I'd contend it would have to do better than evolutionary biology (parsimony and all that).
That would be my view, also. But I don't see that the creationists have any chance of doing that. They are not even trying--they are attempting to force the issue with politics, rather than by producing good science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Newtonian physics is not false and will not one day be replaced by some better science. Newtonian physics has been around for 400 years and has been proven countless times. It is not a theory, it is a set of laws grounded in mathematics. Newtonian physics is, in fact, false. It is wrong. It is not correct. What it is is useful or "good enough". It may offer an exemplar for what theories that we now accept but may prove to be wrong will undergo. That is, while understood to be wrong they will still survive but as something "right enough" in a restricted domain of application. A useful tool even if overturned as the consensus scientific understanding. Newtonian physics is, as I understand, accurate enough to get Cassini to Saturn but not accurate enough to be used in GPS calculations. Of our current theories one or both of QM and GR are likely to go the way of Newtonian physics. Proved incorrect, that is falsified, but still used.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024